Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals? (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

 

[danarhea]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Well this is pretty darn disgusting if you ask me. Pedophiles don't belong on the street, they belong in prison attending mental health seminars. I would invite you to bear in mind that extreme liberalism like this is certainly bad, but it doesn't represent mainstream liberals any more than Ann Coulter represents mainstream Republicans. Extremes bring out the worst in both ideologies.

But to try and answer your question in the title, it's not so much about siding with criminals, as it is siding with whatever can bring the crime rate down. We know from experience (and a 70% recidivism rate) that prison time doesn't deter crime all that much. But rehabilitation programs that teach valuable trade skills have been considerably effective. In that regard, it doesn't matter if we have compassion for the criminal or not, what matters is he'll be out in a few years and has an opportunity to establish a crime-free life. Of course, whether or not he takes that opportunity is totally up to him, but quite a number of them do. If he gets out of prison and all he knows is how to steal, he'll be right back at it and probably harder to catch.

Some liberals (like those judges) take that philosophy to the extreme. Since prison doesn't deter, why even send people to them, right? Wrong! Prison may not be a deterrant, but it is a deserved punishment and it keeps them from putting society into more jeapordy.

I personally think really sick criminals like rapists, child molestors, and serial murderers should always be jailed for life. But drug users and other petty criminals can be rehabilitated, with the right programs. I have 2 older brothers who are living proof of that!

I know that doesn't justify letting pedophiles off scott free, but hopefully it describes the tendancy to be that stupid without really meaning to. :2razz:

 

[aquapub]

I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.

I will take your avoidance of the topic as a confirmation that you have no argument.

 

[shuamort]

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.

So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :rofl

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :rofl

You will find very few pro-2nd amendment people who support felons regaining their right to arms -- if any. Straw, man.

 

[shuamort]

You will find very few pro-2nd amendment people who support felons regaining their right to arms -- if any. Straw, man.

I'm elucidating aquapub's hypocritical point. Please follow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm elucidating aquapub's hypocritical point. Please follow.

You mean that's what you're trying to do.
You picked a poor example with which to do it.

 

[shuamort]

You mean that's what you're trying to do.
You picked a poor example with which to do it.

Feel free to deciminate it with debate instead of just "saying so". Aquapub is accusing democrats of doing something that republicans do as well. I've pointed that out. Your argument has thus far been nonsense like usual.

 

[aquapub]

So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :rofl

:rofl ????? Youve got to be kidding. Please stop devastating me with your rapier wit. :roll:

That point is completely irrational.

That point would stand on its own logic if I were the one asserting that violent felons SHOULD ever be trusted. I consider violent crimes an automatic forfeiture of all but the most basic rights. Unlike Democrats, I am not contradicting myself here.

Democrats can see that the judgement of violent felons is not to be trusted in every way EXCEPT the one that happens to give Democrats a voter base-violent felons having the right to elect our representatives.

Democrats don't even seem to care about the inconsistencies like this in their "logic." It seems all they care about is power, regardless of truth.

 

[shuamort]

:rofl ????? Youve got to be kidding. Please stop devastating me with your rapier wit. :roll:

That point is completely irrational.

That point would stand on its own logic if I were the one asserting that violent felons SHOULD ever be trusted. I consider violent crimes an automatic forfeiture of all but the most basic rights. Unlike Democrats, I am not contradicting myself here.

Democrats can see that the judgement of violent felons is not to be trusted in every way EXCEPT the one that happens to give Democrats a voter base-violent felons having the right to elect our representatives.

Democrats don't even seem to care about the inconsistencies like this in their "logic." It seems all they care about is power, regardless of truth.

You're the helmet-wearing, short-bus riding, retard that brought up the point to support your lame point. Can't have it both ways buck-o. If you condemn the dems for doing the thing you, yourself, support, why point it out as a negative?

 

[alphieb]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

Didn't Bush get a bunch of felons in Florida to rig the polls?:spin:

 

[Kelzie]

:rofl ????? Youve got to be kidding. Please stop devastating me with your rapier wit. :roll:

That point is completely irrational.

That point would stand on its own logic if I were the one asserting that violent felons SHOULD ever be trusted. I consider violent crimes an automatic forfeiture of all but the most basic rights. Unlike Democrats, I am not contradicting myself here.

Democrats can see that the judgement of violent felons is not to be trusted in every way EXCEPT the one that happens to give Democrats a voter base-violent felons having the right to elect our representatives.

Democrats don't even seem to care about the inconsistencies like this in their "logic." It seems all they care about is power, regardless of truth.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[cnredd]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That should be a state issue...

Depending upon the state, that "20 years" is a variable...don't know the maximun a certain state has though...I don't know if any state has "forever"...

 

[Kelzie]

That should be a state issue...

Depending upon the state, that "20 years" is a variable...don't know the maximun a certain state has though...I don't know if any state has "forever"...

Several do. Fourteen states in fact will not allow ex-felons to vote for their entire lives. "20 years" was an arbitrary number to show how ridiculous it is to basically strip someone of their citizenship for a crime they committed when they were young and stupid and have already paid their debt to society for.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Kelzie:
Several do. Fourteen states in fact will not allow ex-felons to vote for their entire lives. "20 years" was an arbitrary number to show how ridiculous it is to basically strip someone of their citizenship for a crime they committed when they were young and stupid and have already paid their debt to society for.

I'm not sure if I can handle your liberal attitude.

 

[aquapub]

You're the helmet-wearing, short-bus riding, retard that brought up the point to support your lame point. Can't have it both ways buck-o. If you condemn the dems for doing the thing you, yourself, support, why point it out as a negative?

You can't be this stupid. I CAN condemn Democrats for CONTRADICTING themselves. And if Democrats are going to take both sides of an issue, I inevitably will agree with them half the time. Jesus, you are being an idiot!

 

[aquapub]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The Constitution in no way involves itself in issue. And we are talking about violent felons here , not jaywalkers.

 

[Kelzie]

The Constitution in no way involves itself in issue. And we are talking about violent felons here , not jaywalkers.

And so what? They go to jail and serve their debt to society. Exactly what would make them incapable of voting?

 

[Mr. D]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

Congratulations on contributing nothing positive but keeping the country split with ideological labeling! At least O' Reilly does it for money! What's your excuse?

 

[disneydude]

Its not that Democrats side with Criminals, its that Democrats stand up for Constitutional Rights that apply to all.
This Country once stood for the proposition that it is better that 9 guilty go free than one innocent person be convicted --- but slowly this has faded away. And the sad thing is that not only are there vast numbers in this country who sit back complacently and allow this to happen, but that there are vast numbers of advocates that are fighting for this to occur
I understand the emotion of "Victim rights adovocates" and I cannot say that I don't agree with their views. However, I also recognize that their cause comes at the expense of the erosion of civil rights for us all.
It has been said that the measure of the civility of a country lies in the manner in which they treat the worst among them.
Its a sad day in America when we are willing to give up the rights our ancestors fought for to satisfy an appetite for vengence.

 

[debate_junkie]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

In Pennsylvania.. as the law stands now, felons' right to vote is restored when they've completed their jail time, but still on probation. There is legislation being proposed.. A) to require ID being shown at all polling places, and B) that felons have completely served their time.. probation included.

I don't see how it makes a difference WHEN the right to vote is restored. The states need to be free to decide this for themselves. And furthermore... felony convictions are usually the worst of the worst in crime's. What "debt" do you speak of? Would this even be an issue of said felon's had conducted themselves in the manner of the law to begin with?

 

[Kelzie]

In Pennsylvania.. as the law stands now, felons' right to vote is restored when they've completed their jail time, but still on probation. There is legislation being proposed.. A) to require ID being shown at all polling places, and B) that felons have completely served their time.. probation included.

I don't see how it makes a difference WHEN the right to vote is restored. The states need to be free to decide this for themselves. And furthermore... felony convictions are usually the worst of the worst in crime's. What "debt" do you speak of? Would this even be an issue of said felon's had conducted themselves in the manner of the law to begin with?

That's only in Pennsylvania. Fourteen states permanantly remove a felon's right to vote.

And it's not the worst of the worst. I have a friend charged with a felony. She shoplifted, which in and of itself isn't a felony, but she took the tags off to get it out of the store. Which is. Now, I'm not saying what she did was right, but never being able to vote for something you did when you were 18?

 

[easyt65]

I found it interesting how year after year there had been reports on how the DNC continually practiced driving convicted felons to the polls to vote. True or not, the news story broke several months ago that several Democrats tried to push through legislation that would strip states of the right to decide if felons could vote or not and make it legal for them to do so anyway. Hillary clinton was even part of that team that submitted the legislation for a vote. The bill never made it to the floor for a vote, as someone with half a brain figured out that S*** would hit the fan with the public if they ever heard about politicians trying to finally make their perceived past practices legal by stripping states of their rights!

I could make the truly partisan joke, answering the question of why Dems always seem to side with criminals, by reminding everyone that their last President IS a convicted Felon for his perjurous testimonyunder oath before a grand jury...but I won't go there. :doh

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65
I found it interesting how year after year there had been reports on how the DNC continually practiced driving convicted felons to the polls to vote. True or not, the news story broke several months ago that several Democrats tried to push through legislation that would strip states of the right to decide if felons could vote or not and make it legal for them to do so anyway. Hillary clinton was even part of that team that submitted the legislation for a vote. The bill never made it to the floor for a vote, as someone with half a brain figured out that S*** would hit the fan with the public if they ever heard about politicians trying to finally make their perceived past practices legal by stripping states of their rights!

I could make the truly partisan joke, answering the question of why Dems always seem to side with criminals, by reminding everyone that their last President IS a convicted Felon for his perjurous testimonyunder oath before a grand jury...but I won't go there.

I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.